DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 453 246
TM 032 783
AUTHOR
TITLE
PUB DATE
NOTE
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
Rasinski, Timothy
Revisiting Reading Rate as a Diagnostic Tool for Reading
Difficulties .
2001-04-12
1 7p . ; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (Seattle, WA, April 10-14,
2001 ) .
Reports - Descriptive (141) -- Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
Elementary Education; *Measurement Techniques; Reading
Comprehension; *Reading Rate
Accuracy
ABSTRACT
Conventional wisdom has suggested that the rate at which a
reader processes text matters little as long as the reader can read with
accuracy and comprehension. This paper makes the case that reading rate is an
essential component of proficient reading, and is significantly correlated
with other measures of proficient reading, such as standardized and informal
measures of comprehension and word recognition accuracy. If, however, reading
rate is to be used as a method for assessing reading progress and problems,
certain tasks must be carried out. These include the identification of valid
standards for reading rate as well as the conditions under which reading rate
should be measured. In theory, reading rate is a measure of the underlying
concept of reading fluency. Authentic interventions such as the use of
repeated readings prior to the performance of poetry or reader's theater have
been shown to lead to improved fluency, improved rate of reading, and
improved overall performance in reading. (Contains 4 tables and 11
references.) ( SLD)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
TM032783 ED 453 246
Revisiting Reading Rate as a
Diagnostic Tool for Reading Difficulties
Timothy Rasinski
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
i • try S
U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
DUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
/ CENTER (ERIC)
k/fhis document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
I Minor changes have been made to
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
• Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
This paper is prepared for the:
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Seattle, WA
April 2001
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Revisiting Reading Rate as a Diagnostic Tool for Reading Difficulties
Timothy Rasinski
Kent State University
330-672-0649
trasinsk@kent.edu
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
April 12, 2001, Seattle, Washington
Abstract
For years reading rate has occupied a secondary role, at best, in most practitioners’
concept of reading and reading assessment and diagnosis. Conventional wisdom has suggested
that the rate at which a reader processes text matters little as long as the reader read with
accuracy and, more importantly, with comprehension. In this paper I argue that reading rate is a
essential component of proficient reading and is significantly correlated with other measures of
proficient reading such as standardized and informal measures of comprehension and word
recognition accuracy. Moreover, recent analyses of students identified with significant reading
difficulties and referred for an in-depth diagnosis in reading reveal almost universal difficulties in
reading rate or reading efficiency.
Reading rate, then, can and should be considered as a reasonable and effective method for
assessment of reading progress and, more importantly, diagnosis of reading problems. If reading
rate is to be used for this purpose, however, I argue that certain tasks need to be carried out.
These include the identification of valid standards for reading rate as well as the conditions under
which reading rate should be measured.
Finally, I conclude that although reading rate can be a valuable and effective tool in the
diagnostic and assessment process, it is not the only tool available, nor should it be the only
assessment and diagnostic tool that a teacher or diagnostician use. Moreover, the identification
of difficulties in reading rate does not suggest simple-minded exercises or other interventions for
building reading rate. Theoretically, rate is a measure of the underlying concept of reading
fluency. Authentic interventions such as the use of repeated readings prior to the performance of
poetry or reader’s theatre have been shown to lead to improved fluency, improved rate of reading,
and improved overall performance in reading.
3
For years reading rate has occupied a secondary role, at best, in most practitioners’
concept of reading and reading assessment and diagnosis. Conventional wisdom has suggested
that the rate at which a reader processes text matters little as long as the reader read with
accuracy and, more importantly, with comprehension. For example, just this past semester I had
graduate students in my “Diagnosis of Reading Problems” course examine reading data profiles
of a variety of students. Those readers with poor reading rates and acceptable comprehension
were viewed by most graduate students, who were themselves practicing teachers, as normal
readers who required little in the way of extra attention or intervention. When the poor reading
rate was accompanied by inadequate comprehension, most students saw a problem. However,
the answer to the problem was to help such readers develop comprehension strategies and skills
to make sense of the text. Few students saw a connection between slow and inefficient
processing of the text and poor comprehension.
Despite this ambivalent orientation toward reading rate held by many practitioners, some
recent studies have indicated that measure of reading rate are indeed associated with
comprehension and general proficiency in reading. The work of Ronald Carver in the 1980s has
helped make the theoretical and empirical connection between rate and comprehension. More
recently, Gay Su Pinnell and her associates (1995), using data from the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, found that reading rate, used as a measure of reading fluency, was
substantively associated with the silent reading comprehension of fourth grade students. In the
study, fluency was closely associated with comprehension, yet there was little difference in word
recognition accuracy among the four identified levels of fluency and comprehension. Reading
rate between the most and least fluent readers (as well as the students with the best and worst
comprehension) differed by nearly a factor of three. The most fluent (and best comprehenders)
read at a rate of 162 words per minute, while those who struggle most in fluency and
comprehension read at 65 words per minute.
Moreover, a pragmatic analysis of reading rate in authentic classroom reading situations
also hints at the importance of reading rate. Students reading at a rate that is nearly one-third the
rate of their classmates would find it difficult to keep up with their classmates on reading
assignments, especially those that required some measure of accountability after a predetermined
1
time for reading, a time period that would most likely not be adequate for those least fluent and
least efficient of readers.
With this emerging recognition of the possible role of reading fluency in assessing and
diagnosing possible reading difficulties, I decided to examine the current state of practical
(school oriented) knowledge of reading rate, particularly on its usefulness as a diagnostic and
assessment tool. More precisely, I asked the question, is there other evidence that reading rate is
associated with more classroom oriented measures of reading achievement and comprehension?
The answer is a definite yes.
In a study of third and fifth-grade students, Rasinski (1999) reported significant Pearson
product-moment correlations of .67 and .57 between reading rate and word recognition accuracy
for grades three and five respectively. Knowing that instructional reading level is partially
defined by a 95% word recognition accuracy level on passage reading, Rasinski suggested that
instructional reading rates could be determined by creating prediction equations per grade level
which would yield targeted reading rates based upon levels of word recognition accuracy.
Rasinski (1990) also reported significant associations between oral reading rate and
several measures of general reading proficiency and comprehension. For third grade students
Rasinski found significant correlations of .37, .45, and .79 between reading rate and retelling,
multiple choice comprehension, and the comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading
Test respectively. For fifth-graders, Rasinski reported significant correlations of .38, .53, and .75
between reading rate and measures of retelling, multiple-choice comprehension, and the
comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test.
Most recently, I had, this past December, the opportunity to take oral reading samples of
two second grade classrooms that made up the entire grade two cohort of a local elementary
school. I took one minute reading probes from each child on a second-grade level passage and a
third-grade passage. From these probes I was able to measures of reading rate, in words read
correctly per minute (WCPM), as well as percentage of word recognition accuracy. I also had
students read word lists at second and third-grade levels, a word list of high frequency words
appropriate to the primary grades, and Cunningham and Cunningham’s Names Test, a test of
2
5
decoding words in isolation in which the words represent a wide range of phonics elements
students are expected to master in the elementary grades. I also asked the two highly experienced
teachers (one of whom had her doctorate in reading education) to rate each student’s overall level
of reading proficiency based on her observations of each child’s reading in authentic classroom
reading situations over the first four months of school. All measures of reading correlated
positively with the teachers’ estimation of student proficiency (see Table 1). However, the
measures of reading rate appear to be among the most powerful and significant predictors of
student achievement as measured by teacher estimation. The correlations between reading rate
and teacher estimation was .79 and .82 for the second and third grade passages respectively. On
the grade two passage, the mean reading rate was 88 WCPM, with a standard deviation of 30.
To summarize at this point, then, regardless of the of measure of student overall
proficiency used, reading rate, an easily obtained measure of reading fluency, appears to correlate
significantly with every measure. Thus, used in a classroom or clinical setting, measures of
reading rate may provide teachers with another tool for identifying those children who may be
experiencing difficulties in learning to read.
Inert Tables 1 and 2 Here
Next, taking this approach to the a clinical setting, I examined the record of every student
in the past two years who was referred to our university reading clinic for reading problems and
for whom measures of reading rate (WCPM) at or one level below grade placement were
available. Because not all children were able or asked to read such passages, not all students
referred to our clinic were included in this examination. Every one of the students in this
examination read at a rate that is below the 50%ile reading rate for their assigned grade level as
identified by Hasbrouck and Tindal (1992) (see Table 2). On average, the 13 students for whom
such a comparison with grade level reading rates on grade level passages was possible read at a
rate that was 48.9% of the 50th %ile reading rate for their grade level. In addition three second
graders were not asked to read a second-grade passage. However, their reading rate on a passage
3
6
below their grade placement was less than half the 50th %ile target rate for their grade level.
Half of the 16 students we provided diagnostic services to in grades two through four were
reading at a rate that was significantly less than half of what could be considered the normal rate
for students at their grade level. Think of the frustration these children must experience as any
reading assignment given them at their grade level requires more than twice the amount of time
to accomplish as the more normal achieving student. At a very pragmatic level, then, examining
reading rate can provide reading diagnosticians with a picture of the reading challenge faced by
struggling readers everyday in their classrooms. At our university reading clinic we now
routinely measure readers’ rate of reading and include that data as part of the diagnostic process.
The connection between reading rate or efficiency and comprehension and general
reading proficiency, however, also has a theoretical basis — one being LaBerge and Samuels’
(1974) theory of automaticity in reading. According to LaBerge and Samuels, readers have a
limited amount of cognitive attention or capacity available to them. That cognitive capacity can
be directed to the surface level task of decoding or to the deeper level task of comprehension.
Attention that is devoted to word recognition cannot be applied to comprehension. Thus, it is in
the readers’ best interest to devote maximum cognitive capacity to comprehension and minimal
cognitive attention to word recognition. As readers develop their word recognition to a point of
automaticity, their sight vocabulary increases, their sensitivity to textual phrasing increases, and
these are both reflected in improvements in reading rate. As reading rate improves within
acceptable boundaries, more cognitive capacity is then freed for comprehension processing, and
comprehension should improve. Thus, examinations of reading rate should provide reading
specialists, diagnosticians, and teachers with one more tool for determining the extent to which
readers have developed mastery and automaticity over the surface level aspects of reading in
order to devote their maximum efforts to making sense of what they have read.
If we accept the premise the reading rate does present reading specialists, diagnosticians,
classroom teachers, and others with one more valid tool for assessing reading performance,
certain questions, it seems, need to be addressed. The first is this: do we have reliable standard
4
7
measures of reading rate that can be used to compare students’ performance?
Carver (1989) did make estimates of silent reading rates based on data reported in another
study. He also acknowledged, however, that there exists a wide variety of rate norms in the
scholarly literature on reading rate. For example, Gilmore and Gilmore (1968) reported that the
average fifth-grade reading rate ranges from 108 to 140 words per minute. Durrell (1955) pegged
the average fifth-grade oral reading rate at 150 words per minute. Stroud and Henderson (1943)
determined that the average fifth-grade reading rate was 181-185 words per minute. For fifth
grade students, depending on the study consulted, a reading rate between 108 to 185 words per
minute could be considered normal and appropriate. Such a wide spread and inconsistency
between reports make such data near useless.
In his latest (Allington, 2001) book on What Really Matters for Struggling Readers , Dick
Allington notes that reading rate plays an important role in students’ general reading
development. Using data found in Harris and Sipay’s (1990) classic text on reading difficulties
and developed from earlier research, Allington provides a set of what he terms “adequate”
reading rate ranges by grade level (see Table 3). These target rates range from 60-90 words per
minutes for first grade students to 215-245 words per minute for seventh grade students, to 250-
300 words per minute for twelfth-graders. Allington does caution his readers that reading rate
data needs to be approached with caution, especially when inferring differences between oral and
silent reading. The standards provided by Harris and Sipay (1990) and through Allington (2001)
do not identify if the data was collected in silent or oral reading. Thus, in addition to concerns
over the lack of agreed upon standards for reading rate, another concern is the lack of specificity
to the conditions under which the standard rates apply.
Insert Table 3 About Here
To determine just how valid these “adequate” rate standards might be, I determined the
oral reading rates of nearly 100 adult college graduate students on a variety of twelfth-grade
narrative and expository texts. The material was read orally for one minute. An examiner
listened to the reading and marked any errors made during the reading. Rate was calculated as
5
the number of words read correctly per minute. In my corpus of readers, the average rate was
166.4 words read correctly per minute. Word recognition accuracy was 99.34%, clearly at an
independent level as measured by informal reading inventory standards. This mean rate, 166
words per minute, however, is severely inconsistent with the data reported by Harris and Sipay
and Allington. Indeed, using the Harris and Sipay/Allington rates for twelfth graders as targets,
100% of these college graduates read below the minimally adequate reading rate and could
logically be considered deficient or inefficient readers that by that criteria.
I attempted to take into account Allington’s caution that older readers tend to read faster
in a silent mode than orally. I collected several silent readings from some of the same adults
who read for me orally and found that, on average, oral reading rate was approximately 76% of
silent reading rate for adult proficient readers on twelfth-grade level materials. Applying this
information to the oral rate data, the mean silent reading rate for adults should be 214 words per
minute. Even with this adjustment, the average reading rate of the adult readers is still
significantly below the Harris and Sipay/Allington minimally adequate reading rates for grades
12, 9 and 8. It is even slightly below the minimally acceptable 215 words per minute rate that
would be expected for seventh grade students.
Concurring with Carver (1989), despite the potential value of reading rate for diagnostic
and assessment purposes, we currently do not have a good handle on just what are the
appropriate reading rates one could expect for readers at various grade levels, not to mention
various times within grade levels. If reading rate is to be a useful tool for identifying and
assisting students with reading difficulties, we absolutely need some clear and valid rate
standards by grade level and time during the academic year.
Hasbrouck and Tindal (1992) have provided us with some preliminary data on reading
rates based on a large sample of children (see Table 4). However, these rates apply to only four
grade levels and, because the data was collected in a variety of sites and conditions, we cannot be
certain of the uniformity of conditions under which the data were collected.
Insert Table 4 About Here
The second major question that needs to be faced if we hope to use reading rate
information to diagnose and help readers with reading difficulties is to develop some conventions
or guidelines for collecting this data. For example, here are just some of the very pragmatic
questions that should be addressed in establishing rate norms and in collecting rate data from
struggling readers:
• In collecting rate data should the reader read orally or silently?
• Should the reader be permitted to rehearse the text prior to the rate collection?
• Should there be a measure of reading comprehension attached to the rate collection?
• How long should the reader be asked to read — for the entire passage or for a
predetermined time period?
• How should rate be calculated — total number of words covered during a reading episode
or words read correctly during the reading episode?
• Should words skipped or omitted be counted in the calculation of rate? What about
words inserted?
• How should words be counted? Should there be a standard unit of measurement for a
word (e.g number of letters make a standard word?)
• How should readers be prompted to read — “in your normal voice” or “as fast as you
can?”
• What type of text should be used for determining rate?
• How should the difficulty of the text be determined?
• How often should reading rate be determined?
• If rate standards are standards for various times within the year, what should those time
periods be?
• What should be the cutoff rates, the rates at which readers are considered to be processing
the text in a competent, efficient, and meaningful manner or, conversely, rates associated
with an inefficient processing or in a manner that serious disrupts the reader’s
construction of meaning and at which intervention should occur?
• What is the relationship between silent and oral reading rates at various grade levels?
Clearly, there are other questions that may be added to this list. And, although they may
seem rather trivial, they should be addressed. We have lived too long ignoring data that could
provide valuable clues to the reading of students who are at risk in reading. We are beginning to
recognize that an efficient processing of text is necessary for proficient and meaningful reading.
But we can only use the information if we have clear and adequate standards and procedures for
collecting and interpreting that data. I truly feel that it would be a worthwhile project to firmly
establish those norms and procedures so that reading scholars and practitioners alike can use and
understand data that is just to valuable to ignore.
Finally, I wish to conclude by noting that although reading rate can be a valuable and
effective tool in the diagnostic and assessment process, it is not the only tool available, nor
should it be the only assessment and diagnostic tool that a teacher or diagnostician use.
Moreover, the identification of difficulties in reading rate does not suggest nor should it lead to
simple-minded exercises or other interventions for building reading rate. Theoretically, rate is a
measure of the underlying concept of reading fluency. Authentic interventions such as modeling
fluent reading, providing support while reading, and the use of repeated readings prior to the
performance of poetry or reader’s theatre have been shown to lead to improved fluency, improved
rate of reading, and improved overall performance in reading. Although fluency can be assessed
using reading rate as one measure, reading fluency can and should be taught in authentic and
engaging ways for students. As fluency improves, reading rate and comprehension will improve
as well.
8
11
References
Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers . New York: Addisson,
Wesley, Longman.
Carver, R. P. (1989). Silent reading rates in grade equivalents. Journal of Reading Behavior , 21 ,
155-166.
Durrell, D. D. (1955). Manual of directions, Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty . New York:
Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Gilmore, J. V., & Gilmore, E. C. (1968). Manual of directions, Gilmore Oral Reading Test .
New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students
in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children , (Spring), 41-44.
Harris, A., & Sipay, E. R. (1990). How to increase reading ability , 8th edition. New York:
Longman.
Laberge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology , 6, 293-323.
Pinnell, G. S, et al. (1995). Listening to children read aloud: Data from NAEP’s Integrated
Reading Performance Record at Grade 4 . Washington: Office of Ecuational Rsearch and
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
RRasinski, T. V. (1990). Investigating measures of reading fluency. Educational Research
Quarterly , 14 , 37-44.
Rasinski, T. V. (1999). Exploring a method for estimating independent, instructional, and
frustration reading rates. Reading Psychology , 20 , 61-69.
Stroud, J. B., & Henderson, M. (1943). Rate of reading and learning by reading. Journal of
Educational Psychology , 34, 193-205.
9
12
Table 1
Correlations Between Teacher Estimation of Overall Second-Grade Student Reading
and Other Measures of Reading Performance
Type of Reading Correlation with Teacher Estimation
Measure of Overall Student Reading Performance*
Second Grade Word List .78
(20 words)
Third Grade Word List (20) .77
(20 words)
High Frequency Word List .70
(15 words)
WCPM Grade 2 Passage .79
WCPM Grade 3 Passage .82
Word Recognition Percentage .49
on Grade 2 Passage
Word Recognition Percentage .52
on Grade 3 Passage
Names Test (72 words) .76**
* Teacher estimation made in December; based on four months of daily observation, instruction,
and other collected data.
** All correlations significant at the .001 level
n = 36
10
13
Table 2
Student
Assigned Gr
2 (Nov)
2 (Nov)
2 (Feb)
2 (Feb)
2 (Jan)
2 (March)
2 (April)
3 (Oct)
3 (Feb)
3 (March)
3 (March)
udents Referred to the KSU Reading Clinic for Diagnostic Testing *
Rate on Passage at Target
Gr Placement(WCPM) Rate**
Rate on Passage One Gr Level
Below Placement (WCPM)
53
14
53
36
78
31
29
33
78
78
38
28
51
78
51
36
94
49
72
79
73
63
48
93
93
95
56
46
93
55
Table 2 (continued)
Students Referred to the KSU Readme Clinic for Diagnostic Testing *
Student Rate on Passage at Target Rate on Passage One Gr Level
Assigned Gr Gr Placement(WCPM) Rate** Below Placement (WCPM)
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
9
(October)
58
99
47
(Nov)
71
99
81
(March)
71
112
74
(March)
64
112
117
(March)
24
112
33
(October)
105
102
(October)
105
58 (gr 3 text)
(October)
Not Avail
81
(March)
120
Not Avail
128
(March)
83
Not Avail
75
(March)
70
Not Avail
77
*A11 students referred to the clinic for significant reading difficulties perceived by the teacher
and/or parent. All students were determined to have an instructional reading level at least one
grade level below their actual grade placement as a result of the diagnostic process.
** Target rate is the 50 %ile rate identified by Hasbrouck & Tindal (1992)
12
15
Table 3
Grade Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
Adequate Reading Rates*
Rate in WPM
60-90
85-120
115-140
140-170
170-195
195-220
215-245
235-270
250-270
250-300
* Rates originally reported by Harris and Sipay (1990) and reported most recently in Allington
( 2001 )
Table 4
Curriculum-Based Oral Reading Rate Norms*
Grade
Fall
Winter
Spring
2
53
78
94
3
79
93
114
4
99
112
118
5
105
118
128
♦Fiftieth percentile rank rates norms are reported. Data originally reported in Hasbrouck &
Tindal (1992). More complete data can be found in the original article.
Rate data is reported in Words Correct Per Minute (WCPM)
14
17
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
TM032783
1EPRODUC TION RELEASE
(Specific Document)
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
Title: RgnA'S* fri ^(=r- ikXSt KfVtG" fV
U~T\gS
Author(s): ^TT ^7 R ^3 \
Corporate Source:
Publication Date:
/^Pk\L 12 , 2 . 0 ©
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:
In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,
and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if
reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom
of the page.
Level 1
Level 2A
Level 2B
i
i
□
Check here for Level 1 release, permitting
reproduction and dissemination in microfiche or other
ERIC archival media (e.g., electronic) and paper
copy.
Check here for Level 2A release, permitting Check here for Level 2B release, permitting
reproduction and dissemination in microfiche and in reproduction and dissemination in microfiche only
electronic media for ERIC archival collection
subscribers only
Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.
If permission to reproduce Is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.
Sign
here,-*
please
O
EKLC
/ hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document
as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system
contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other sen/ice agencies
to satisfy information needyyf educatoyfinqesponse to discrete inquiries.
PffofeSSgg dP spaced
Signature
Organization Address: y ' (J tf t T<£~ N/91-U.
Ke^rr_ Snyrtr
Kgkst-j on
Printed Name/Position/Title:
'jTjK&rhQL y, Qasjtisja PhD,
A.
Telephone:
E-Mail Address:
* 336 -
FAX.
336~&r?2-26ZS
Date:
(over)
III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):
If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please
provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly
available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more
stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)
Publisher/Distributor:
Address:
Price:
IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:
If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and
address:
V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:
University of Maryland
ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation
1129 Shriver Laboratory
College Park, MD 20742
Attn: Acquisitions
However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being
contributed) to:
ERIC Processing and Reference Facility
1100 West Street, 2 nd Floor
Laurel, Maryland 20707-3598
Telephone: 301-497-4080
Toll Free: 800-799-3742
FAX: 301-953-0263
e-mail: ericfac@ineted.gov
WWW: http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com
EFF-088 (Rev. 9/97)